John Reid: Such things cannot happen with formations of the Home Service Battalion, but individuals have served, as many people from other regiments have done, in attachment with the basic regiments that are serving in Iraq.

John Reid: Yes, I believe that it should be at the top of the international agenda. I am sorry if my tone today is emollient and sorrowful rather than aggressive. I am trying to find my sorrowful side on the matter after advice from so many Conservative colleagues.
	Notwithstanding that, the problem is serious for the reasons that I outlined. They include not only our concern about the link with the attempts to kill our troops in Iraq but the statements threatening to wipe Israel off the map, the history of clandestine attempts to develop nuclear weapons and the possibility of long-range missile delivery systems. All that is difficult, but solving the problem diplomatically would serve the world better. I therefore assure my hon. Friend that the greatest urgency and priority has been given to the matter and I simply ask him to witness the efforts, energies and time-consuming dedication that the Foreign Secretary has shown on it. It is our profound wish that this matter be solved quickly and diplomatically, and the way for that to happen expeditiously is for Iran to return to the suspension of the facilities and the conversion, as it promised to do earlier, and to enter into serious negotiations in an attempt to resolve the issue.

John Prescott: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the explosion yesterday morning at the oil depot near Hemel Hempstead.
	I am sure that all Members will join me in thanking the emergency services, the voluntary services, local authority staff, Government officials and local people for the magnificent way in which they responded to the event—with speed, efficiency and dedication. I visited the site yesterday afternoon on my way down from Hull and spoke to the chief constable, Frank Whitely, and the chief fire officer, Roy Wilsher. I also met staff from the other agencies involved in the incident. I was impressed by how well organised they were, and how they were getting on with a very difficult job. I stressed that the Government would provide the support and assistance needed to tackle the fire, and I reported back to the Prime Minister last night.
	The scale of the situation is obvious from the powerful images that we have seen on television. The emergency services and other agencies are working together to tackle the fire. The facts are these. At about five past six yesterday morning, there was a huge explosion at the Buncefield fuel depot, on the outskirts of Hemel Hempstead. The site is about 1 km from junction 8 of the M1. The cause of the explosion is not yet known. It is thought to have been an accident, but we shall need a full investigation by the Health and Safety Executive in due course.
	The explosion and the fire have totally destroyed the north side of the oil storage terminal. Twenty oil tanks have been destroyed, but the remaining tanks on the southern part of the terminal have been protected from fire. There has been considerable structural damage to the buildings on the surrounding industrial estate, and some homes up to three miles away have been damaged. Casualties have fortunately been remarkably light, largely because the explosion happened early on a Sunday morning. Yesterday, 43 people were treated in hospital; only two of them were seriously injured and only one now remains in hospital, in a stable condition.
	As in all major incidents, the police established a "gold" command to bring together the emergency services and other key agencies. It is in Welwyn Garden City. In addition, the Government's eastern regional resilience team has provided a direct link with central Government, local authorities and voluntary agencies.
	The initial focus was to secure the area and stop the blaze from spreading. About 100 police officers and 100 firefighters were at the scene yesterday, and about 150 firefighters from 12 different fire and rescue services are tackling the blaze today. They are succeeding in putting out fires in 10 of the 20 fuel tanks. About 250,000 litres of foam were used this morning, and more supplies are on the way. The fire services believe that they have enough foam to smother the fire and prevent it from starting again.
	The scale of the incident was such that local resources were not sufficient, so the House will be grateful to fire brigades across the country that responded so quickly to calls for help. I also want to thank the people who are co-ordinating the response across the country so effectively.
	I am pleased to tell the House that the high-volume pumping equipment, which was used so effectively in the Carlisle floods in January, has again proved vital. Just one of those high-volume pumps does the work of 18 traditional fire engines and it can pump water over a distance of some three miles. The new equipment was provided by my Department under the New Dimension programme for precisely those kinds of major emergencies.
	The fire has had a number of wider consequences—in particular, health issues, the impact on fuel supplies and the provision of other public services. It has generated a large plume of smoke, which has spread widely. The plume is largely made up of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. As the fire comes under control and as the heat reduces, there may be an increase in smoke locally. While I am advised that the plume is not toxic, the smoke is certainly unpleasant and may affect people with lung conditions.
	The Department of Health is working closely with the Environment Agency, the Health Protection Agency and the Met Office so that we can give up-to-date information about the plume and any implications for public health. Anyone concerned about the impact of the incident on their health should contact NHS Direct. Residents in the affected areas should stay in, close their windows and watch the news. As a precaution, a number of schools in the area have been closed today and employees of companies in the cordon have been advised not to go to work today.
	The movement of the plume was unpredictable, so officials have also been in contact with the European Union to keep other countries updated. Prior to the fire service's assault on the fire today, there were detailed discussions with the Environment Agency to ensure that the foam and water cannot reach the drinking water supply.
	The oil industry and the Department of Trade and Industry are working to overcome any impact that the incident may have on supplies of aviation fuel to Heathrow and Gatwick. A number of local services have also been affected and some precautionary measures have been taken. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, some local people were evacuated from their homes to two rest centres provided by Dacorum district council, but only a few people took advantage of that.
	The whole House will, I am sure, wish to pay tribute to the way in which the local council, voluntary agencies and the whole community responded to the emergency. I understand that a few people cannot return to their homes yet, but most are expected to do so within the next 24 hours.
	Road transport was seriously disrupted yesterday as a result of the fire. The M1, M10 and local roads were all closed. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the M1 has now reopened, although entry and exit at junctions 7 and 8 will be restricted in order to allow easier access for the emergency services.
	As I said at the start of my statement, the response to the Hemel Hempstead explosion is a great tribute to all the emergency and other services involved and it is also a testament to the benefit of effective emergency planning. In the world in which we now live—with increased risks of both terrorism and accidents—multi-agency, cross-government contingency planning is vital. Day in, day out, this type of preparation takes place behind the scenes and away from the glare of the media, yet it is for events such as yesterday's that we plan.
	I can tell the House that, only three months ago, the emergency services in Hertfordshire conducted a successful exercise, covering just such an eventuality as occurred yesterday. The speed and efficiency of their response is testament to their foresight. Through the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, we put in place the legislative framework that set the foundation for that sort of multi-agency planning. The Government's investment in the New Dimension programme has also provided the equipment that worked so successfully in Carlisle and now in Hemel Hempstead.
	It is through the bravery, commitment and professionalism of our emergency services that we can respond so effectively to events such as this. Last night, I witnessed a group of firefighters who were about to enter the inferno. We admire the courage and abilities of those firefighters, who work hard and willingly for the safety of the community. The House will want to record its admiration for their courage and dedication in working on behalf of the community. Not only the firefighters but the police and the ambulance workers deserve our fulsome praise and admiration. I am sure that the House will join me in recording our thanks and gratitude for the courage and hard work of our emergency services.

Michael Penning: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber so quickly to make a statement. On behalf of my constituents in Hemel Hempstead, I also thank him for visiting us yesterday at a very difficult time for us. I apologise that I was not available in the area that he visited; I was actually with constituents on the other side of the fire.
	I praise the professionalism of what is without the shadow of a doubt the best fire service in the world, which has been fighting the fire in Hemel Hempstead for about 30 hours. As a former fireman, I dreaded going to such fires and as the crews were going to the fire I know they were dreading what they might see when they arrived, especially as they knew that people were working at the site. The luckiest men alive are the maintenance workers who walked away with only cuts and bruises even though they were only a few feet away from the initial explosion. I have met the maintenance workers, and the shock has set in as to how lucky they are.
	This is a national disaster and the costs of fighting the fire cannot be borne by the taxpayers and the fire authority in Hertfordshire. It is physically impossible. I welcome the extra appliances that were sent from all over the country and, in particular, the other fire authorities that have been working so closely with my crews throughout last night and today. The situation looks promising, as the fire is out in a lot of the tanks, but the costs will be unbearable for the local community. Not only are there firefighting costs but, as the House will be aware, the industrial estate, which is closed to cameras today, is devastated by the blast damage, as are the local residents, and the next part of my question relates to the long-term effects on them.
	When the depot was built, there was hardly any residential property around it, but over the last 40 years it has been surrounded by residential accommodation. Forty years ago, the site was probably assumed to be safe; clearly, it is not today. May we have an urgent inquiry into the siting of such depots? Such an inquiry should cover not only the facility itself but the emergency facilities around it. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister was informed yesterday that the acute accident and emergency centre where the injured persons were taken is due to close next April, under Government proposals. If the depot remains in the area, my constituents will be worried about the long-term effects of that closure for their community.
	This is not about party politics; it is about what is right and wrong for our constituents. I am so proud of my constituency and the way that people pulled together as a community yesterday. I thank them for all the work they did and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for going there yesterday.

John Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I was well aware that he was actively looking after his constituents' interests during my visit. I hope that he will accept that my intention was not to commit the chief constable or the chief fire officer simply to attend me, but to ask whether they wanted any assistance, so I was in and out quickly. I hope that he understands that that was the reason why I did not contact him when he was seeing to his constituents' needs.
	As a former fireman, he will appreciate more than anyone the difficulties facing those firemen at present. I have referred to them waiting to go into the inferno, and we all admire the extraordinary courage of firefighters in those circumstances. Of course, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), is also a former fireman—so I have got them to the front of me and to the back of me. I felt that during the last dispute, but I will not go into that situation. Nevertheless, I have never doubted the courage of those people who, as workers, are willing to face danger in such a way. No other person is faced with that, and we are grateful to them for doing so on behalf of the community.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to this as a national disaster. Again, the resources that we make available under the Bellwin scheme for such circumstances will be judged against the incident. Clearly, terrible and extensive damage was done to the industrial estate, and the insurers have already told those companies, as well as householders, that they are prepared to consider all those complaints. We will see what we can do in that regard.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the residential properties near to the site. Obviously, planning permission was given for them, but I will certainly look into that and see whether any lesson can be learned.
	In regard to the emergency services at the hospital, that was certainly not expressed as a concern, but I readily take on board what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I give him the same offer as I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman): if he desires to see me in a few days when the position is a little clearer, we can discuss exactly his fears and whether we can do any more to assist his constituents.

Anne McIntosh: May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying extensive tribute to all the emergency services, whose members put themselves in harm's way when the rest of us cannot escape quickly enough? He will be aware of the emergency planning college at Hawkhills in Easingwold in the Vale of York, so will he ensure that the work that it does to prepare for such emergencies is well known? Will he ensure that any future scenarios for which it plans training sessions will encompass the incident and take on board any lessons from the inquiry?

Former Far East Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees (Ex-gratia Scheme)

Don Touhig: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's ex-gratia payment scheme for former far east prisoners of war and civilian internees.
	On 1 December, I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration on the operation of the scheme. It was introduced on 7 November 2000 and the first payments were made in February 2001. The birth-link criterion was clarified internally in March 2001, and clarified publicly on 11 July 2001—each successful claimant would receive £10,000. I explained to the Committee that I had commissioned a review into whether consistent eligibility criteria had been used throughout for civilian internees, and I undertook to make a statement to the House before the recess.
	The review now under way requires the Veterans Agency to look at a large number of claim files, and the House will understand that it is not yet complete. As I said to the Committee, there was a desire on all sides to introduce the scheme as quickly as possible because of the age of some of the former POWs and civilian detainees. It is clear that we did too much in haste when introducing the scheme and it is important that we now take sufficient time to get it right. None the less, many individuals who may be affected are elderly and I recognise the importance of resolving the issue as quickly as possible.
	The scheme at present offers compensation to British internees born in the UK, or internees who had a parent or grandparent who was born here—the so-called birth-link criterion. The work under way confirms that claims decided before March 2001 were not decided on the basis of the birth-link criterion or on eligibility rules that were fully consistent with it. Of those early claims for which payments were made so far examined, there is clear evidence that the majority were decided by reference to an earlier scheme in the 1950s, which used liquidated Japanese assets to compensate far east prisoners of war and civilian internees. Those eligibility rules for the scheme were based on the question of whether the individual was a British national, was normally resident in the UK before internment, and had resumed residence after the war. Evidence so far examined strongly suggests that the birth-link criterion was introduced in part because it was found that eligibility based on the earlier Japanese asset scheme excluded many claimants with a close link to the United Kingdom.
	The introduction of the birth-link criterion in March 2001 allowed large numbers of additional civilian internees to be paid. The overall effect was to widen the number of people who met the qualifying criteria. However, this change of criteria had two other specific effects. First, we have identified some 240 claims that were paid in the first period which, on the evidence available when the claim was decided, could not be identified as meeting the birth-link criterion. Though these claims were not decided on the birth-link criterion, it is probable that a number of them would have satisfied it, had we sought further evidence on whether any of the claimants' grandparents were born in the UK. I emphasise that we do not intend to ask for any repayment in these cases.
	Secondly, there may be some claimants who would have qualified before the birth-link criterion was introduced because they had benefited under the Japanese asset scheme, but who were rejected because they applied after March 2001 when they were assessed against the birth-link criterion. We do not know the numbers of this latter group, but we think they are small.
	We still have some way to go in examining claim files and I cannot at this stage say that there are no other issues concerning the application of eligibility criteria. What I can say is that we are determined to undertake a thorough review to ensure that we expose any difficulties that there may have been with the eligibility rules. It is also too early to say what effect our findings might have on the scheme's eligibility criteria. I can, however, again confirm that there is no question of seeking to recover payments already made to claimants who would not have met the birth-link criterion. I can also assure the House that no claimant will be disadvantaged if he or she would have qualified under the criteria based on the Japanese asset scheme but failed because the claim was considered under the birth-link criterion.
	There is a separate question about how the use of inconsistent criteria before and after March 2001 was not exposed earlier, in spite of the fact that there have been a number of court cases, ministerial statements and an inquiry by the parliamentary ombudsman. I have decided that this should be the subject of a separate investigation, and I have asked the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to identify a retired senior official or comparable person from outside the Departments involved who could appropriately lead the investigation. The work will be put in hand as a matter of priority and I will report its findings to the House when it is complete.
	The House will be aware that there have been two claims for judicial review of the scheme which have focused on the eligibility criteria applied to former civilian internees. It is too early to say what effects the review that we have been undertaking may have on these, but I can assure the House that we will disclose to claimants in those cases and to the courts the results of our review when these are known. I will also share this information with the parliamentary ombudsman.
	In addition, Members on both sides will want me to tell them that a number of claimants for whom strong support has been expressed in the House and more widely will become eligible for payment. I know that the case of Professor Hayward is a particular concern for a number of hon. Members who raised it with me. I understand their wish to see the position resolved for those individuals, but I have to make it clear that, until our review is complete, I cannot give any assurances about how the criteria might need to be changed or what the effect might be on individual cases. At this stage I can say only that we fully appreciate the difficulties that we have brought on these individuals as a result of uncertainties about the scheme criteria, and that we will be seeking to resolve them as quickly as we possibly can.
	I have said a number of times that we recognise that mistakes were made as a result of the speed of the introduction of the scheme. All those involved wished to see the payments made as quickly as possible, given the age of many of the former civilian internees and prisoners of war. It is now clear that the scheme's eligibility criteria were not applied consistently through the scheme's life and that we did not identify that that was the case over an extended period. That resulted in inaccurate statements, including by Ministers to Parliament and to the parliamentary ombudsman, for which I apologise unreservedly, Mr. Speaker. I also express my apologies and deep regret to those individual claimants who have been adversely affected.
	We will complete our review of the application of eligibility rules as quickly as possible, but with the overriding requirement that we must ensure that we have bottomed out any problems that there may have been with those rules. At that point, we will also consider what changes are required to our current criteria to ensure that no claimant was disadvantaged if they would have qualified under the criteria based on the Japanese asset scheme, but failed in their claim because it was considered under the birth-link criterion. Our objective will be to remedy any shortcomings in the decisions on claims as quickly as possible, and I hope that we will complete that work by early February, at which point I will make a further statement to the House.

Julian Lewis: I fear that this statement will come as a severe disappointment to members of the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region. Today's statement was anticipated by the Minister's testimony to the Public Administration Committee on 1 December, and it was hoped that something substantive would be announced. Instead, we have had a typically gracious apology, which is only the latest in a line of apologies—there was an apology in a written ministerial statement on 13 July, and there was another apology, and the offer of £500 compensation for the mistakes made, in a further written ministerial statement on 11 October.
	In reality, the veterans and civilian internees are not looking for more apologies; they are looking for the Government to honour the pledge that they gave on 7 September 2000. Does the Minister recall what Lord Moonie, as he now is, said when he held his post? He said:
	"I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that, as a result of the review, the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity."—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 159.]
	Does the Minister recognise that there has been a humiliating confrontation with the courts and a humiliating confrontation with the ombudsman? An adjustment was made to the criteria that narrowed them to exclude some people who had been in the camps, but that also widened them to include some people who had not been in the camps. Does the Minister accept that some people who were never in a Japanese camp, such as those who were evacuated in 1942 or those who sheltered in Red Cross and Church homes, have been paid, which has inflated the number of claims and is delaying the process even further?
	In discussing the need to act with haste, does the Minister accept that the announcement on 7 November 2000 was the culmination of cross-party efforts in support of the campaign for compensation to be paid, which was waged by veterans and civilian detainees for many a long year? What is it about the issue that makes it such a poisoned chalice for Ministers who are compassionate and considerate in all their other actions? Why is it such a struggle to get the compensation for people who were in the camps?
	Does the Minister accept that what has happened has been a dishonouring of the people who, in this 60th anniversary year of the ending of the war, most deserve our consideration and respect? Has he ever read, as I did as a youngster, the tales of what happened to those people? Many of us read the accounts in "The Naked Island" by Russell Braddon and "The Knights of the Bushido" by Lord Russell of Liverpool when we were, frankly, far too young to read of such horrors.
	Does the Minister accept that this process, this ordeal, this revisiting time and again of issues that should be settled on an ex gratia payment, has gone on far too long, and will he now use his best efforts to bring it to an end once and for all?

John Reid: Let me make a little progress, and then I will allow some more colleagues to intervene.
	I want to say a word or two about the offences under part 1. All offences under the Bill are service offences. They are divided into two types. First, as now, service personnel will remain subject to the ordinary criminal law of England and Wales wherever they are serving. Secondly, the disciplinary offences that are unique to service law—many of which will be familiar, such as going absent without leave or looting—have been reviewed and brought up to date. We have removed certain offences because they are no longer appropriate or no one is ever charged with them, or because they are more properly charged under other provisions or dealt with administratively. It is not just the offence of scandalous conduct of officers that has gone. Other examples include
	"allowing sequestration of aircraft or ship by a neutral state in time of war"
	and billeting and requisitioning offences.
	I want to say something now about the role of the commanding officer, which has featured in many interventions, before giving way to hon. Members. In our armed forces, commanding officers are responsible for the discipline of those under their command. A large part of the exercise of that discipline is done by example and leadership. Their authority is critical to the delivery of unit cohesion and operational effectiveness. As I said, that authority is primarily exhibited through their qualities of leadership and by inspiring the confidence, loyalty and trust of those who serve under them. Those qualities have long distinguished the British armed forces from many others throughout the world.
	Ultimately, commanding officers must have the power to enforce discipline throughout the military criminal justice system. The Bill provides commanding officers for the first time with harmonised powers to deal with all people under the command of whatever service. To create such harmonised powers, we are reducing the theoretical extensive summary jurisdiction of commanding officers in the Royal Navy. I use the word "theoretical" because in reality those commanding officers do not exercise their powers over very serious matters, not least because their powers of punishment are far too limited. That might address points that hon. Members raised earlier. We are, however, increasing the powers of Army and Air Force commanding officers to deal with the small number of additional criminal offences that are set out in part 2 of schedule 1 with which, in straightforward cases, Navy commanding officers already deal summarily. There is thus some diminution of powers for the Navy, but a big increase within the armed forces.
	The summary powers of commanding officers recognise the importance of not only giving authority to COs but being able to deal with such matters expeditiously. As part of that recognition, we are also harmonising the powers of commanding officers to deal summarily with officers up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and equivalent, subject to certain conditions.
	Part 5 of the Bill sets out the duties of commanding officers in respect of allegations that a serious offence has been committed. Clause 113 provides that a commanding officer will be required to inform the service police as soon as practicable in the event of an allegation of a specified inherently serious offence, or an offence for which certain prescribed circumstances apply. The service police, who may already be investigating the matter, are in turn required to refer the case to the independent director of service prosecutions if they think there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with one of the inherently serious offences. It is the director of service prosecutions who will decide whether to bring charges on the basis of proper tests and a real understanding of the military context. That is the kernel of the relationship among the commanding officer, the investigating officers and the director of service prosecutions.
	I stress that the offences that we are talking about are those that are inherently serious; they are ones of which there cannot be a minor example. They include civilian criminal offences such as murder and rape, other serious sexual offences, robbery, terrorism offences and so on. They also include some disciplinary offences that I am sure the whole House would agree are inherently serious, such as assisting the enemy and mutiny. The maximum sentence for those disciplinary offences is life imprisonment.
	I want to explain why we are making the changes, so that hon. Members can perhaps understand the way in which they are meant to protect the integrity and independence of the military system. At present, if a person is charged, the commanding officer has the power to dismiss a charge—whether the offence is serious, such as those that I have mentioned, or not—without any form of hearing or evidence. Under existing law the result of such action means that even in extremely serious matters, such as those that I have just mentioned, dismissal excludes any further proceedings in the military system. Thus, the evidence is never heard and no decision in the case is ever taken by any independent service prosecuting authority. The case is dismissed by a commanding officer, no matter how serious, without any hearing, as I have said. That is theoretically possible. It has happened in practice. The case cannot then be tried at any other stage, whatever the misgivings, whatever the feelings thereafter or whatever the decision in the military system.
	That, however, is not necessarily the end of the matter. Where civilian courts also have jurisdiction, civilian authorities may take action. The jurisdiction of the civilian courts may come into play as a result of the services being prevented from taking any further action on the matter even if there is afterthought through just such a technicality. That is what I wanted to address and we wanted to address. It is the problem that gave rise to so much dissatisfaction over one particular case.
	The Bill will ensure that the director of service prosecutions will decide on serious cases, and that on serious cases a commanding officer's action cannot prevent further action by the services themselves. Some people have attacked the proposal as interfering with hallowed historical powers of commanding officers. It is simply wrong, however, that commanding officers alone must be able to decide whether to charge those under their command with serious offences such as rape or murder, and to do so without any hearing, or to dismiss a charge that has been brought without any form of hearing.
	Even if that were not wrong, which I believe it is, it gives rise to allocation afterwards to the civilian courts as the matter is prevented from any further consideration under the military system. I do not think that commanding officers should be placed in that position and have that responsibility placed on them for such offences—and nor do they. As long as they have such responsibility, the services will be open to recourse to civilian law as in the Trooper Williams case, which gave rise to so much antagonism and unease throughout the House, the other place and outside.
	I have explained to the House that we have taken these steps to prevent something of the sort happening again.

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about randomly selected panels. Did he look at the points raised by the Judge Advocate-General in front of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, including the suggestion that the panels should be larger, particularly for cases involving more serious offences? He also questioned whether it made sense for the panels to be involved in sentencing.

Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), both because of the issues that she raised, to some of which I shall return, and because of her work on the Defence Committee. The Committee's work is very important to the quality of our debate. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) is present and he may wish to speak later.
	Let me also belatedly congratulate the new shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). As ever, he has brought his energy and intellectual sharpness to the debate and I look forward to what will happen over the next few months. At the very least, he maintains the Scottish stranglehold on the defence portfolio on both sides of the House. I apologise for having missed his debut last week when he responded to a statement on a very serious matter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) responded on behalf of my party. It was a reminder to all of us of the seriousness of the context in which today's debate takes place.
	All of us rightly pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and bravery of our armed forces time and again. As was pointed out earlier, as we debate in the safety of the Chamber, they put their lives at risk in many parts of the world. We must never forget that.
	The importance of the Bill is obvious from the difficult demands placed on servicemen and women day in, day out. The Secretary of State highlighted that when he spoke of the terrible growth in asymmetric warfare in recent years and the difficulties involved in dealing with enemies and others who do not operate according to the value systems and rules that we observe and expect others to observe. Recent court cases have drawn attention to issues that have been raised here today. I am sure that they will bring some of the Bill's proposals into sharp relief and make our scrutiny all the closer.
	Proper service discipline is fundamental to our operational effectiveness and it is fundamental to our role in the world that our armed forces operate within the law and not above it. In considering appropriate legislation for the armed forces, we must try to balance complex and sometimes competing priorities. As others have said, the Bill represents a significant overhaul and modernisation of service legislation and we broadly support it. Given the changing nature of warfare and peacekeeping, which demand interoperability and joint operations, it makes sense to consolidate the Service Discipline Acts and to harmonise legislation with civilian justice where that is appropriate. We support the objective of ensuring consistency and fairness across all the services.
	Today marks the start of the long process of passing the new legislation, but the process of scrutiny has been under way for some time. The House is indebted to the work of the Defence Committee, whose first report of the Session on the Bill draws the House's attention to key issues to which I, like others, will return. The Committee's work builds on that of its predecessor in the last Parliament, whose report on the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill and duty of care report have made invaluable contributions to our considerations. The same can be said of the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which was published today. We should also express our gratitude to the Library for its rapidly produced briefing paper, which is important to our debate today and to the detailed consideration that will follow.
	The one disappointment—here I echo the hon. Member for Woodspring—is the delay in the publication of the official explanatory notes. I join others in paying tribute to the quality and hard work of those responsible for that complex task, but parliamentary scrutiny is not assisted when explanatory notes are not available for several days after the publication of a Bill.
	The unique status and importance of the Armed Forces Bill is reflected in the special procedures allowing its consideration by a Select Committee. The details of the timing and the balance between the Select and Standing Committee aspects are still to be established, but we support the broad thrust of what has been said about the time that will be available between now and the end of April. A single day for recommittal to the whole House for the Committee stage and Third Reading seems barely adequate, but on balance we support the programme motion.
	Let me turn to the proposals in the Bill. As past White Papers and recent experience show, joint operations are an increasingly common feature of service life. Training for such missions, and the operations themselves, throw up critical issues. Commanding officers do not have disciplinary powers over all whom they command, and naval commanding officers in particular enjoy different powers from those of their Army and Air Force counterparts. That is unacceptable in this day and age and clearly needs to be changed. We welcome the proposals that have been put forward to do so. The existence of separate Service Discipline Acts makes the use, interpretation and amendment of legislation more complicated than it need be and perpetuates inconsistencies. In that context, harmonisation makes sense.
	The Bill is intended to equalise the scope of offences that can be heard summarily by commanding officers and the sentences that can be imposed. At the same time, the CO's ability to dismiss charges for offences for which he or she has no summary powers is to be taken away and investigative responsibility is to be handed to the police, independent of the chain of command. Those are large changes, already the subject of much discussion and debate this afternoon, but we believe that they are right and proper. Like others, however, we will want to look carefully into the detail.
	We need to ensure that the operational effectiveness of commanding officers is not compromised by the changes to their roles. As others have highlighted, they will require appropriate training in due course. On a broader plain, we must not overburden any of our armed forces with legal constraints that undermine their ability or confidence to take appropriate action, not least in hostile circumstances in which lives are at risk. However, we also have a duty to those same armed forces to ensure that they are treated in a manner consistent with domestic and international law and a wider duty to observe our international obligations and equip the services with the procedures and disciplines that ensure that they can carry them out. The detail of the Bill will be considered in Committee so that it can be assessed against those tests, but we support its underlying principles in that respect.
	The report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, following evidence from the Judge Advocate General, raises a number of important issues for the House to consider in respect of the administration of justice, which changes significantly under the Bill. It highlights the military court service—currently run by the Ministry of Defence, but recommended to be brought under and resourced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The appropriate type of court martial should be chosen, it is argued, by judge advocates, not by the prosecution. Another issue, already debated this afternoon, is for more serious offences to be put through the court martial, which surely creates a strong argument for larger panels, not least for offences punishable by imprisonment of 14 years or more. The Secretary of State's willingness to revisit that issue should be welcomed on both sides of the House. These are serious matters that require close scrutiny and we will listen carefully to the Government's response.
	The Judge Advocate General also made observations about the length of time that trials take. In his evidence to the Select Committee, he specifically raised his concern that
	"the end to end time taken to dispose of cases remains a serious concern . . . both in major and minor cases."
	He recognised that specific issues and unique circumstances affect the timing and length of inquiries, but he identified at least one area that could be improved—the quality of the papers and evidence supplied by investigators to the prosecuting authority. That is partly about procedure and expertise and partly about resources. The Bill should provide us with the opportunity to examine those matters in more detail, but we will surely also have to examine the way in which resources are allocated within the armed forces justice system to ensure that investigations are carried out appropriately and in good time. The Minister of State's written statement last week on the recent 3 Para trial was welcome.
	Deepcut, in particular, and bullying and harassment more widely in the armed forces have become a growing cause of concern for us all. In our most recent debate on "Defence in the UK", that was an important area of focus. The latest available Army "Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey" to April this year is striking in that regard. As I mentioned in that debate, one key set of findings highlighted that 25 per cent. of soldiers had cause to complain about unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment and/or bullying—and more than half of them were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the objectivity and fairness with which the complaint was handled. If ever there were a time to reform the system of redress and grievances, it is now.
	The Bill takes steps in the right direction with the creation of the service complaints panel and other measures, but as the Defence Committee stated in its new report—and as highlighted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton—the proposals fall some way short of the independent complaints authority that the Defence Committee's predecessor Committee advocated in the "Duty of Care" report in the last Parliament. It specifically recommended that the commission should have independence from the armed forces and the MOD, power to look into past cases, access to all papers and relevant people and that its recommendations should be binding. Those tests are not met by the Bill as it stands. Much will depend on the secondary legislation to define what exactly a "service complaint" is and to clarify the time limits and the circumstances under which an independent member of the panel will be appointed.
	The new Committee's report argues that
	"it remains very difficult to judge at this stage the full effect of the Government's proposals. But it is clear that the Government has rejected the main principles of our predecessor Committee's recommendations—the Bill does not provide for a mechanism to deal with complaints that is truly independent of the chain of command."
	The Government must, at the very least, publish the draft regulations that will govern this aspect of the Bill. Otherwise, I hope that we will all want to amend the legislation in Committee.
	Having set out some specific areas of concern about the Bill, which we will hope to explore further in Committee, I want finally to raise couple of issues that relate to our role as legislators in this place and Parliament's duties to scrutinise the Executive. The Bill runs to more than 240 pages with 375 clauses and 15 schedules. Notwithstanding its bulk, much detail is absent from the provisions—on the service complaints panel, for example. That leaves us having to take a great deal on trust. Beyond that, there is perhaps a more fundamental issue.
	This legislation, as the Select Committee points out, will no longer be subjected to annual renewal or the appropriate consideration by Parliament that goes with it. That represents a major change in the powers of the House and one that we do not believe is right. For centuries, Parliament has placed limits on the Executive's rights in regarding the Army and other armed forces in respect of total numbers and the expenditure that goes with it. We appreciate that, these days, the debate often centres on whether or not we have enough soldiers, but the notion of placing limits on the Executive is still extremely important. In this of all eras, the principle of accountability has surely not become an anachronism.
	Other than administrative convenience, the change seems to offer no advantage and there are no new safeguards to give effect to the principles of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. We will listen carefully to the Minister's response in the wind-up, but hope that the proposal will be rethought in Committee and annual renewal reinstated.
	We demand much of the military personnel who serve this country, face dangers that we can barely understand and take risks with their lives that we can hardly imagine. We have a vast duty of care towards them, which, as a minimum, requires that the service discipline and laws under which they operate are clear and take account of the extraordinary things expected of them. The Bill is the starting point for that process. While there is much in the detail that we will want to scrutinise further and amend in Committee, we support its aims and will support its passage in the House tonight.

Kevan Jones: I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and we did indeed take evidence from those who were no longer trainees, and from the relatives of those who had died and had got past initial training. Although the scope of our inquiry related to the duty of care of trainees, it was evident from the way in which it developed that we also had to examine other areas, and doing so proved invaluable to the final report.
	We also took evidence from the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram); from Colonel David Eccles, chief of staff; and from Martin Fuller, director of service personnel policy, service conditions at the Ministry of Defence. It was a long inquiry—it took more than a year—and we visited some 15 different training establishments and took evidence from a variety of individuals in all three services.
	The inquiry's recommendations were clear, one of which—the establishment of an independent military complaints commission—is very important and central to this debate. It was worked on in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). He was a member of the Defence Committee at the time but is now in the purdah of the Whips Office, so he cannot take part in this debate. He was keen on this recommendation because a number of his constituents had died while serving in the armed forces, and their families, along with others, led a campaign to highlight the problem of bullying and harassment in the armed forces.
	We envisage a commission that would have the authority not only to investigate complaints but to make recommendations that would be binding on the armed forces. It would be for the commission to decide whether to undertake an investigation, but it would take into account only serious allegations. Importantly, its findings and structure would be independent of the MOD and the chain of command. However, we are not suggesting that it should in any way be a substitute for the chain of command. I should stress, as other Members have stressed, that it should be seen as an independent body that people can approach to ensure that serious grievances are dealt with. I came to the view that establishing an independent commission is important because our armed forces, particularly the Army, have suffered terribly in the past few years as a result not just of the Deepcut allegations, but of other deaths in military service. A truly independent scrutinising mechanism would certainly bolster the public's confidence in the armed forces.
	Not everyone who came before our Select Committee was in favour of such a commission. General Palmer said:
	"I think that that is a step too far because there is a chain of command. The Armed Forces are a unique set of people—there is no doubt or question about that. They are asked to do things that no one else is asked to do. That respect of the chain of command is vital."
	I agree, but the Defence Committee's proposal would in no way cut across the chain of command. The MOD and the military are by their nature very conservative with a small "c"—in some cases, with a big one—but having such an independent commission could do no harm. Without one, there will be serious question marks over isolated but horrific cases such as those that have led to bullying and, sadly, to young recruits taking their own lives. We have heard about many such cases in the media in the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) pointed out in an intervention, some people have got through initial training, only to take their own lives because of the way in which they were treated in the armed forces.
	I accept that people are criticising me and others for this introducing this proposal, but I should point to the example of the UK police force, which, until 2002, was criticised for investigating itself. Since then, Independent Police Complaints Commission has been created. Importantly, it reports to Parliament, so it is publicly accountable. It is not linked to any Government Department, so its decisions cannot be overruled by politicians; they can be overruled only by a court of law.
	Initial reactions to the IPCC's creation were that it would impact on operational effectiveness and impose an additional bureaucratic burden, and that busy-bodies who knew nothing about day-to-day policing would be telling chief constables what to do. Throughout our inquiry, similar arguments were advanced against having an independent commission in the armed forces. By way of contrast, the senior police officers to whom we spoke during our inquiry expressed the view that the IPCC has benefited the police's working practices and led to greater transparency. The most important thing that the IPCC has done is to bolster the public's confidence that the police are not a law unto themselves, and that if complaints are made by individual members of the public, they will be investigated thoroughly and—crucially—independently.
	The Government's response to our report—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned it earlier—said the following about the creation of an independent commission:
	"We accept that there is a case for introducing an independent element to the complaints system: there are different models for this, in this country and abroad, and their implications need detailed examination. We will carry out this work ahead of the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill planned for later this year."
	I was a little disappointed to discover what the Bill says about the establishment of a service complaints panel. The panel would consider a service complaint—although, as has already been said, nobody knows what the definition of a service complaint would be.
	I am also disappointed that the independence of the body is still a little sketchy. As I understand it, the panel would be set up by the Defence Council, which would appoint the panel members, but in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State could appoint an independent panel member.

Joan Humble: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I believe that the Bill, as drafted, will miss a valuable opportunity to address the vital issue of accountability. I hope that special attention will be given to accountability in the discussions that will take place after the debate.
	I will certainly listen very carefully to the Minister's response to hear whether he has reflected further on Surrey police's recommendation that the armed services should consider the value of establishing a mechanism for independent oversight, which was developed and advanced by the Defence Committee in its inquiry into the duty of care. The model advanced by the Select Committee was that of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland—a model that, thanks to the skill and leadership of the ombudsman, Mrs. Nuala O'Loan, is regarded universally as a world leader in police accountability.
	The Deepcut and Beyond families group supports the proposal for an ombudsman or independent complaints commissioner. The group especially welcomes the Defence Committee's recommendation that any such ombudsman should have the power retrospectively to look at cases on which when many families did not get answers—they still have not had answers. The group can also see the merit of an independent inspectorate along the lines of Her Majesty's inspectorates of police and prisons.
	Another proposal, which is particularly relevant while the Army continues to recruit under-18s to military service, is to create a system of lay visitors panels, which could carry out announced or unannounced visits to barracks to interview and monitor the well-being of service personnel.
	Another issue that I wish to raise is impunity for armed service personnel. We rightly deplore those dictatorial regimes in which security personnel can do no wrong, where brutality, rape and murder during an armed conflict or behind the closed doors of the military barracks goes unpunished. In such regimes, even a conviction in a civilian court may be regarded as a technical matter and temporary inconvenience. The soldier concerned may be welcomed back into the army and even promoted.
	It has, as far as I am aware, always been the case for the British Army—this is set out in the Queen's regulations—that in the event of a serious misdemeanour resulting in conviction and sentence to imprisonment by a civil court, the soldier would be automatically discharged. When discussing the Bill with some members of the Deepcut and Beyond group, they drew to my attention two cases in which the Army has sought exemption from that rule on the grounds that the conviction did not bring into doubt "the integrity" of the soldiers concerned. I am informed that one case involved the conviction of two soldiers for murder. Another case involved the conviction of a soldier for manslaughter by gross negligence. If soldiers can be routinely dismissed for the possession of class B drugs, I can find no rationale to allow those who are found responsible for the death of civilians or their fellow soldiers to remain.

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course, we are discussing the armed forces, but similar things can be said about the police. In no way do I underestimate the split-second decisions that soldiers must make. Nevertheless, on one hand some of the families whose children have died in the armed forces see action that is veiled in secrecy—they cannot get answers about their children from the Army—and on the other hand they see the Army defending soldiers in circumstances where they may have doubts about the action that was taken. I am not making any remark about the particulars of individual cases; I am simply drawing to the attention of the House the concerns of families about what might be seen as two rules—one for them and one for other people—and we must have accountability, consistency, fairness and openness in all those decisions.

John Reid: I agree entirely that the principle under the Bill of Rights that every Parliament should reauthorise that the standing Army should be maintained. That is why we have agreed that there should be a Bill each Parliament. The question is whether we need to legislate every year. The hon. Gentleman is half right because the suggestion did not originate in the Ministry of Defence, but he was wrong to say that it was the responsibility of the Treasury or the Whips Office.

Julian Brazier: In reply to the Secretary of State's justified remark about my absence, may I make it clear that I left the House because I was summoned to the office of my new party leader? There is no announcement resulting from that; I am staying in the same position. I wish to make it clear that no disrespect to the Secretary of State was intended by my leaving a few minutes after an intervention on him.
	I take a gloomier view of the Bill than the last few speakers, including two distinguished colleagues of mine. As we debate service discipline, it is important to remember that the grinding overstretch resulting from the four major entanglements into which the Government have taken our armed forces and from cuts in their manpower has led to an exodus of experienced people from the armed services, as well as a rise in the services divorce rate. The men and women who will be subject to the measure that we are debating have seen their pensions attacked when the whole of the rest of the public sector have seen their pensions protected. They have seen the burden of proof raised for compensation claims for injuries incurred on service. They have been infuriated by the Saville inquiry and the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.
	Behind the Armed Forces Bill lies an ugly trend towards civilianising the military world. Military life, with its risks, hardships and requirements for stern discipline simply is not comparable to that of civilians. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). He will not mind my saying that he ended on the fence. I share many of the concerns that he expressed. The military world is not the same as the civilian world.
	It would be wrong to disparage the entire Bill. I understand why we are not opposing Second Reading and there are a number of welcome elements. The service complaints panel strikes the right balance in dealing with issues such as Deepcut. We must not have another Deepcut. I agree with my colleagues' comments on the tri-service aspect as servicemen increasingly operate in joint units, although there is a question about some of the special requirements of some naval commanding officers, particularly submarine commanders.
	I welcome the modest expansion of powers for the CO in the Army and Air Force regarding summary hearings for lesser offences. It is that aspect that makes other parts of the Bill so hard to understand. Evidently the Government comprehend, at least in part, the importance of the CO and such powers for maintaining not only discipline, but a sense of continuity and community. There is a unique bond between a commanding officer and his men. The strength of that bond underpins the remarkable feats that the House has come to expect of our servicemen and women. As Lord Boyce said on 14 July in the Lords debate on the legality of the chain of command,
	"we interfere with the unique linkage between the commanding officer and his men at our peril."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1235.]
	Why limit that trust now by removing all the powers relating to more serious crimes? We all know why. The Secretary of State made it clear in his speech—the case of Trooper Williams. It is important to remember that that was at a time when there had been a small number of allegations concerning prisoners. It related to something that had happened not in a prison or in a camp, but at a checkpoint in a dangerous area and involved a member of the enemy who was found to be carrying ammunition. The case was initially dismissed by the CO on advice from the Army legal service because of a lack of evidence. The director of the Army legal service then referred it to the Attorney-General for possible trial in the civil courts. After protracted wrangling, the case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service following a long delay because of a lack of evidence.
	The provenance of the case is disturbing, to say the least. In his statement on 7 April, the Attorney-General referred to the fact that
	"the commanding officer had 'dismissed' the charges against Trooper Williams"
	and continued:
	"The matter could not, because of the actions of the commanding officer, be dealt with by way of court martial. It was referred to me to consider further action."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2005; Vol. 671, c. WS 92.]
	That is in the context of recent remarks by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who I see in his place. He stated:
	"Discipline is essential, and we depend on service law to enforce it.
	A fighting force that cannot obey orders and display self-control in peacetime will not stand up to the much more demanding circumstances of operations."
	In a sense, that is platitudinous. We would all agree with that statement. Did the Minister feel that he had to say it? Does he believe that British troops are less disciplined than other armies in any of the theatres in which they have recently operated? There are indeed a very small number of disturbing incidents involving prisoners in Iraq, but overall I believe our forces are the best disciplined in the world. Yet today they face a brutal enemy and an unprecedented blizzard of investigations and prosecutions—prosecutions brought about by Government policy and in which, in a number of cases, the Attorney-General has played a crucial role from the safety of his office in Whitehall.
	The Williams case was a protracted, distressing and shameful assault on the reputation of a gallant soldier. It did not happen because his CO had the power to pursue the case but did not do so. It happened because the opinion of the CO was brushed aside in what many in the Army believe—rightly—was a political desire to charge and convict someone amidst all the allegations of human rights abuses in Iraq. Now the Government want to remove the authoritative opinion of the commanding officer, the man on the spot who shares the risks with his soldiers, the man who got it right in the Williams case, and hand that power to the Army legal service.
	The Government have learned the wrong lesson. They are keeping the bath water and throwing the baby to the wolves. On 24 March—I quoted this in an intervention on the Secretary of State—the Adjutant-General wrote to the Chief of the General Staff and CIC Land, copying his letter to the brigadier, to inform them that he intended to write to the director of Army legal services to ask him to draw the case to the attention of the Attorney-General for the purpose of having resort to his jurisdiction. In that letter, the reason given was:
	"With current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths if Iraqi civilians during operation telic: our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause celebre for pressure groups, and a significant threat to the military justice system."
	I have no intention of attacking a senior serving officer, but if I were a serving soldier, my blood would run cold if I heard that remark, which was first unearthed by Lord Campbell in July in another place.
	The situation is being compounded by the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which my party rightly voted against. All hon. Members oppose war crimes, but the wording of the 2001 Act is so vague that senior officers can be held accountable for actions of which they had no knowledge, simply on the ground that they might have taken steps to prevent them. I do not intend to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by repeating my recent speech on the workings of the 2001 Act in relation to the case of Colonel Mendonca, which is now sub judice.
	I ask the courts to take into account the point that the 2001 Act works against the chain of command. The long-standing leadership principle in the British Army that commanders delegate authority to their sub-commanders, let them get on with the job, trust them whenever they can and support them if things go wrong and they believe that their sub-commanders have behaved reasonably, which takes considerable moral courage. The ghastly news that General Peter Wall, who is a fine soldier by any standards, is being investigated for supporting one of his subordinates in such a situation under very difficult circumstances underlines the ghastliness of the 2001 Act.
	Turning to the recent case against paratroopers from the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, the case against seven members and ex-members was dropped, because the judge had concerns about the adequacy of the evidence and the integrity of the Iraqi witnesses—reportedly, the case cost £10 million of taxpayers' money. In the Lords debate on the legality of the chain of command, Lord Inge highlighted the fact that British lawyers were hawking no-win, no-fee arrangements around Iraq, promising taxpayers' money to those who would bear witness against British soldiers. So much for the deal, which the hon. Member for South Ribble has rightly emphasised, on the duty of care that we owe to our soldiers.
	Why would the Government want to create a new legal apparatus and remove the power of responsible commanding officers at the same time as they are putting the Compensation Bill through the House of Lords? The Compensation Bill is a modest response to public concern about the pernicious and corrosive compensation culture, which often originates in the pursuit of money by a small number of lawyers and which destroys risk taking, personal responsibility and community spirit. It suggests to judges that they can—many of us want it to "require" judges to do this—consider the social harm of awards made against those who take responsibility.
	The Armed Forces Bill, however, has the power to compromise the ability or willingness of our armed forces to take necessary action in theatres of action by removing their most important safeguard—the role of the commanding officer. For an individual soldier, the CO represents a trusted bulwark of understanding and common sense who takes account of the differences inherent in active service. Instead of being allowed to intervene, he is now threatened with committing a war crime under the 2001 Act, if he does not actively pursue a prosecution.
	The Government have lost sight of the fact that a court martial system is an inquisitorial system, not an adversarial system like the civil courts. When a matter goes to court martial, it is easier to get a conviction than would be the case in a civilian court.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. The standard of proof is, of course, supposed to be the same, but the case is decided not by a jury, but by a group of military officers. All the evidence suggests that it is almost impossible to bring a jury case against soldiers in an active theatre, because most members of the jury would not be willing to take the risk of going out there. The system, which is designed to underpin the chain of command, is inquisitorial and makes it easier to get a conviction, but we have removed the safeguard of COs allowing such cases to proceed and introduced the 2001 Act, which means that a CO may become culpable when something, in which he may not have had a hand, takes place, merely because he has allegedly suppressed evidence.
	The Bill goes against a basic, underlying principle in English life. Since the Magna Carta, one of the key principles of our jury system has been trial by one's peers. Who are the peers of a man or woman who has been sent into a combat zone, which may involve a hostile land, being outnumbered or, as the Secretary of State has said, the complicated situations created by modern asymmetric warfare? The answer must be, "Other members of the armed forces." The current system involves a random selection of members of the armed forces being put on to a panel, which provides a degree of independence that echoes a jury trial, albeit within an inquisitorial system. The Bill will introduce a standing court martial, which, bluntly, will consist of a group of case-hardened officers who conduct such cases all the time—it may be that such officers have not seen active service for some time, if they have done so at all. It will make it easier to get convictions.
	In a statement about the failure of the case against seven members of the Parachute Regiment, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) said:
	"This case has shown our determination to ensure that justice is done irrespective of the difficulties."—[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 22.]
	I think that he meant that justice is being done in a way which will appease left-wing elements in the media, who seem to think that our armed forces are responsible for a chain of atrocities. It is true that there have been a small number of genuine incidents in which there has been genuine public concern, but it should not have led to a situation in which our forces feel under "legal siege"—not my words, but those of a former Chief of the Defence Staff speaking in another place in July.
	The Bill includes many measures, some of which are welcome, but three major changes have occurred or are occurring to the balance of probability of a conviction: first, the Bill removes the safeguard of scrutiny by the CO, the man who really understands the situation; secondly, the 2001 Act specifies that if COs do not process the papers on a case, they may be done for war crimes; and thirdly, the Bill contains a ridiculous proposal to move away from a proper selection of officers for a court martial towards the ghastly idea of a kangaroo court, which a standing court martial could easily become, of officers who do nothing else over a long period.
	The Government should have heeded the warnings that the six chiefs of staff gave us in July about the pressure that the armed forces feel under from the legal profession at a time when they are being worked extremely hard and facing considerable dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is extraordinary that the Government should introduce a Bill that will increase those pressures and make it much easier for members of the armed forces doing their duty in Iraq to be convicted of offences that in some cases are not even recognised in any previous form of English law.
	This is a bad Bill. I hope that we manage to achieve some changes in Committee, but if not, I sincerely hope that we will vote against it on Third Reading.

Andrew MacKinlay: I congratulate the architects of the Bill, who have brought before Parliament a most interesting measure that is worthy of great study. It is highly appropriate to subject it to the innovative Select Committee procedure for examining legislation. Although the House has had that option for some time, it has not used it very often. I hope that this Bill will be pioneering in the sense that it becomes the usual practice, instead of the exception, in dealing with legislation.
	Every speech by colleagues—I use that word deliberately because I want to include Members on both sides of the House—has contained some stimulating thoughts. I cannot recall a debate in which I have agreed substantially with so many aspects of the cases that Members have advanced. Their contributions have been not only cogent but fair and legitimate, and they will be good material for the Select Committee procedure that will follow this Second Reading.
	I want to raise an issue that is new to this debate. Parliament is very conservative—in a non-partisan sense—about having a representative body for members of our armed forces. I am not suggesting a trade union or a body like the Police Federation, but a unique representative body that can do several things, including giving advice, counsel and support to individual members of our armed forces when they feel in some difficulty. There is a manifest need for that. I am as certain as night follows day that one day this House will enact such legislation, and that after a short space of time people will look back in amazement and wonder what the fuss was about. Of course, that Bill would have enshrined in it safeguards to protect the operational decisions of commanders in conflict situations. That would be writ large and understood. Such a measure would be modernising and sensible, and it will inevitably come. I regret that the main parties do not see it as an innovation that would put us in front of many other armed forces in ensuring that the interests of our servicemen and women are protected.
	Such a body would benefit the Government by being a champion of our armed forces in terms of promoting their function, role, ethos and doctrines within the United Kingdom while helping to project them around the world in the positive way that, mercifully, they have always largely maintained. I wish we could begin to contemplate a representative body in addition to an independent complaints body. Indeed, the former could make representations to the latter.
	An area that has been omitted from the Bill and has not been discussed, but which we cannot long avoid discussing in the context of military discipline, is the increasing interface of our armed forces with large numbers of people working for private military companies. Only a few years ago, they were relatively few in number and it would have been considered extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government were hiring private military companies.
	When the Labour Government took office, the issue first came up in the context of our support for the Government of Sierra Leone. There was an interface with Sandline and other related companies that had the potential to cause embarrassment not only to the Government but to our armed forces, especially when the Royal Navy helped to repair a Sandline helicopter. The ground rules need to be clearly set out for commanders and those who have to make decisions, especially when they are being coaxed, encouraged or given a nod and a wink by the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to work alongside—and, I fear, collaborate with—private military companies. I am uncomfortable with that.
	A few years ago, the Government produced a Green Paper on private military companies. The Foreign Affairs Committee said that such matters should be regulated and that there should be an equivalent of end-use certificates for private military companies. We expressed our concern about rules of engagement and circumstances in which private military companies work alongside or with our regular armed forces.
	The other great fear is that Governments—including our Government, albeit unintentionally—are attracted by private military companies because they give an opportunity of denial if things go wrong, or in the case of what would otherwise be perceived as a military offence, such as bad conduct. Those companies also have a capacity to dissolve themselves so that it is difficult to call anybody to account subsequently.
	Newspapers reported in the past month how the United Kingdom Government hire and have contracts with enormous numbers of private military companies—I call them mercenary soldiers but I do not want to be provocative—and the costs involved. As sure as night turns into day, some commanders will soon be greatly embarrassed by the fact that, because it is the will of Her Majesty's Government—namely the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—they have had to work alongside those people.
	Unless and until we start to draw up strict ground rules, there are all the ingredients for at least embarrassment and for decent people facing charges and falling foul of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, with which I shall deal shortly. I did not agree with much that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said about it, but there is a danger of people being embarrassed by those whom they have to work alongside, who are unaccountable and not subject to military discipline. That is a matter of grave concern. Perhaps those who serve on the Select Committee that considers the Bill will at least scratch the surface of the subject in their deliberations.
	Many hon. Members referred to various clauses. I was interested in clause 25. It is worth drawing the attention of the House—and the royal household—to it. It states:
	"A person subject to service law commits an offence if he misapplies or wastes any public or service property."
	It refers to
	"rows 2 to 12 of the Table in section 163."
	That provision sets out all the punishments that would apply if there were an abuse of military material and equipment. That sanction and warning, which is on the face of the Bill, applies to all military personnel from the humblest to those of royal rank.
	I listened carefully to the welcome from hon. Members of all parties for bringing together the military law of the three services. It occurs to me that, if and when the Bill is enacted, there will be a compelling case for our reviewing the service police. I am very much a traditionalist. Indeed, I am displaying tonight a small memento of the Essex Regiment. I had to leave the Chamber briefly when the antique badge was presented to me by Mr. Blake Perkins from the United States earlier this evening. I said that I would be proud to wear it during this debate. That regiment is important to me, as I know it is to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tell the House this story only to emphasise that I am a traditionalist.
	I want to maintain the Royal Military Police and the police services of the Royal Air Force and the Navy. However, there are some parallels with the three nursing services of the armed forces, in that the police forces are badged separately but should, operationally, increasingly work together. There would be obvious benefits from economies of scale and from the use of new technologies and the need for specialisms in any police investigatory service. Logically, we should be thinking in terms of an integrated service police force. The police forces should be separately badged, and continue to enjoy the traditions that have endured over the centuries, which should be preserved, but we should bring the separate forces together in much the same way as we have with the nursing services.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), and I think that his concerns about the International Criminal Court are wrong. He seems to be genuinely confused about the court—an institution that is ever so important—which is embryonic and fragile but which will prove, over the years, to be a great force for good and a sanction against people who are not subject to military law. In relation to our own armed forces, I would remind him that, because we have codified law, both civil and military, it does not apply to us. It provides a catch-all jurisdiction to ensure that some of the bandits around the world, who are not subject to a military code of law, do not get away.

Andrew MacKinlay: Nowhere. Since the hon. Gentleman asks, however, let me say that I am very interested in Gibraltar. The Gibraltar Services Police are comparable to the Ministry of Defence police, as distinct from the military police. They wear blue uniforms, they are what I call bobbies, and they are badly served by her Majesty's Government—again, unintentionally, but on another occasion I shall be having chats with the Minister about them. They do not have a police authority, and they should; they do not have federation rights, and they should; but that is not relevant to the Bill, so, as you will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not raising it now. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was right to bring it to our attention.
	Under the heading
	"Review of summary findings and punishments",
	clause 151 states
	"Where—
	(a) a charge has been heard summarily, and
	(b) a finding that the charge has been proved has been recorded, the finding or the punishment awarded may be reviewed at any time."
	You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that both under the last Conservative Government and during the lifetime of this Labour Government, when the present Secretary of State was Minister for the Armed Forces, I drew the House's attention to the case of more than 300 British soldiers who had been executed during the first world war on charges set out in part 1 of the Bill: cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms, and hitting a superior officer. I thought that it was a shade unfair, to say the least, that they had been executed. The present Secretary of State came to the House, and—I deeply regret this—I was rather polite to him at the time. I went away very sad and angry, and decided not to let the matter rest.
	I want to be fair to the Secretary of State. He made a speech acknowledging that many of the executions had been unfair, but he advanced a case for not reviewing them. I do not believe that it is a matter of history. The daughter of Harry Farr, executed in October 1916, has taken the Secretary of State to court. Her name is Gertie, and I was privileged to meet her mother. Having checked with the Table Office and the Clerks Department, I find that the matter is not sub judice, and I am pleased to say that I can refer to it.
	Some weeks ago, the judge looked over his desk to counsel for the MOD and asked whether counsel would like to reflect on the matter and return in January. We need to know what the Secretary of State is thinking. I raise the issue now because I believe that the Bill's long title, and clause 151, give me an opportunity to table amendments giving effect to a private Member's Bill that I have tabled in the past—it commanded support from all parts of the House—to grant a posthumous pardon to those 300-odd soldiers who were executed during the first world war. It would be much better if Her Majesty's Government took the initiative on this matter. To anyone who says that they will not do so, I have to say that, for reasons that I shall explain, they are thinking about it again.
	The New Zealand Parliament has unilaterally granted pardons to members of the Otago Regiment who were executed. Strictly speaking, in respect of our constitution, that is constitutionally irregular. The only Government or Parliament with responsibility for this issue is based at Westminster, because it applies to what were British empire forces. To its credit, I believe, the New Zealand House of Representatives in Wellington decided unilaterally to grant pardons.
	The third point—the first being the Harry Farr case, to which the Secretary of State will have to respond in the not too distant future, and the second being the New Zealand case—relates to the Taoiseach who, more than a year ago, made a submission to the Ministry of Defence, arguing that the Irish soldiers among the 300 should be pardoned. Given that the Secretary of State for Defence, when he was Minister of State for Defence, stood before Parliament and said, "No, regrettably, it cannot be done", one might think that he would have sent off a letter to Dublin saying the same thing. However, he has not done so, as I have ascertained from a parliamentary question during the last couple of weeks. The reply said that a response would be given to the Government of the Irish Republic in due course.
	The Under-Secretary, currently in his place, has some competence in this matter. I hope that he will not consider it offensive for me to say it, but when I approached him about this matter informally, he suggested that dealing with it was above his pay grade. I can understand that and I took it that he was not necessarily unsympathetic, but I expect someone somewhere to respond to the issue. A response must be given to the Irish Republic—[Interruption.] I see the Secretary of State assuming his place. From the bottom of my heart, I hope that he will accept that a compelling case has been made and that public opinion has not abated but grown in support of granting pardons. Consistent with "Erskine May" and our Standing Orders, I believe that either the Bill can be amended to provide for pardons for the 300 or we can establish an independent review panel, as distinct from the Secretary of State, to look into the cases. Now would be great opportunity for him to acknowledge that he is considering the matter.

Gerald Howarth: It has nothing to do with anti-Euro myths or with anything else. Time is short, and I have made that point.
	The hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) both called for independent investigations. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr allied himself to human rights lawyers, which was brave of him.
	Several hon. Members have referred to written evidence from the Judge Advocate General to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, in which he said:
	"There are several cogent reasons for maintaining a unique system of military justice, separate and distinct from the civilian system. These are to:
	—support operational effectiveness and morale;
	—maintain discipline which is an essential element of command;
	—reflect the special and unique nature of the Armed Forces, in which sailors, soldiers and airmen are required to use lethal force to support Government policy, to risk their personal safety, and to be prepared to lay down their lives for their country; and
	—extend the law of England and Wales to personnel serving overseas and outside the jurisdiction of the civilian courts.
	He continued:
	"The limited powers of Commanding Officers to deal summarily and immediately with minor offences are subject to the unfettered right of the defendant to elect trial by Court-Martial or to appeal to the Summary Appeal Court for a de novo hearing after the Commanding Officer's hearing. The two tiers together (Courts-Martial and summary dealings) amount to a system which is proportionate, effective, economical, ECHR compliant, and meets the unique requirements of the Armed Forces."
	I do not think that any of us could better encapsulate the importance and relevance of a separate military system. Broadly speaking, we support the thrust of the Bill, which is why we shall not oppose it on Second Reading. However, we have a number of reservations. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring made it clear that we are concerned about the ramifications for the authority of commanding officers. It is not as though we are discussing these things in a rarefied academic forum. We are doing so against a backdrop of challenges that face our armed forces day in, day out as they make life and death decisions, and I make no apology for repeating that to the Secretary of State. A group of soldiers on patrol do not know whether the man with his hand in the air is holding a grenade or a tomato. We must give our men the benefit of the doubt in those circumstances, because if we do not do so we will destroy the very system in which we take great pride.
	There is genuine concern about such matters, which I hope the Committee will be able to address. The two cases in the civilian courts that have been mentioned—the Trooper Williams case and the case involving seven members of 3 Para—both collapsed. It was disgraceful that a lawyer went to Iraq to trawl for Iraqis, who were basically bounty hunters collecting £100 a day from the British tax payer to denounce our armed forces. That is unacceptable, and I believe the Iraqi Government should apologise for the disgraceful action of those Iraqis, who did nothing to promote the cause of Iraq among the British people. The problems highlighted by those cases must be addressed.
	A few final points—first, the Bill makes no reference to rules of engagements, which are of concern to us all. There ought to be some provision for those. Secondly, we must have an annual review, for the reasons that I outlined. There is common consent right across the House that annual review is essential. Thirdly, I hope that the Bill is not a prelude to some sort of Canadian-style merger of all three services. The Secretary of State shakes his head—I take great encouragement from that. One of the strengths of our system is the individual ethos of each service. We are trying to harness and retain the individual ethos within a more procedurally efficient system.
	The Bill will be committed to a Select Committee. I am sorry that that will conclude on 27 April. It is a complex Bill, but we have a month longer than was originally offered, so that, at least, is encouraging.
	In conclusion, I happened to be in Basra the night that two members of the British armed forces were rescued. I spoke to Brigadier Lorimer the following night, and I know the Secretary of State had phoned to congratulate him on an outstanding operation. The dramatic pictures of those Coldstream Guardsmen getting out of those Warriors on fire went around the world. A couple of days later I happened to be in al-Udeid in Qatar, which is a US airbase where Britain has a significant presence. I was sitting in the canteen watching that on CNN, and the sheer amazement of the American servicemen and women that our armed forces had put up with that level of provocation without a shot being fired said a vast amount about the self-restraint and self-discipline of our armed forces. In that, we should take great pride. It is very important that in the Bill we do nothing that will undermine the power of commanding officers and the bond between commanding officers and their men which led to that self-restraint and self-discipline, which are admired throughout the world.

Nick Herbert: I should of course mention the need for improvement at Chichester. There is already a dual carriageway there, but it needs to be upgraded.
	As the Minister will know, all the regional bodies agree. The South East England Development Agency strongly supports the bypass. It points out that road investment in the south-east per capita is lower than investment in any other UK region. SEERA also supports the bypass. Indeed, it strongly condemned the Secretary of State's rejection of the A27 improvements, which it said was "perverse" and risked turning coastal Sussex into
	"a social and economic backwater."
	The county council is strongly in favour of the bypass. West Sussex Economic Partnership, representing the local business community, is also in favour of it, believing that congestion on the A27 is one of the main barriers to economic regeneration of the coast. Sussex Enterprise supports the upgrades. Last year a poll of its members and other local businesses found that one fifth of businesses would have to consider relocating outside Sussex unless the transport infrastructure, particularly the A27, improved soon. The RAC Foundation has condemned the Government's rejection of the A27 improvements, and says that it believes strongly that the decisions should be reconsidered.
	Let me deal briefly with some of the objections to the bypass. I do not believe that they stand. The first relates to the environmental impact. The original bypass route was not seen as a threat to the environment. Indeed, the Secretary of State's own decision on the preferred route noted that it was supported by English Nature, Sussex Wildlife Trust, the Arun branch of Friends of the Earth and the Sussex branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
	I recognise that road building is unpopular with those who are directly affected, but I hope that the Government's reticence and reluctance to support a scheme is not being influenced by protesters who began to build tree houses as a decision on the bypass seemed imminent. Decisions on these matters must be made democratically, not as a result of direct action by Swampy's friends. I myself would be anxious to ensure that a bypass did not result in the building of new housing between it and Arundel, thus changing the character of the town irrevocably, but I am assured that that could not happen, as the land concerned would be on the flood plain of the River Arun.
	There is also the question of whether the bypass would go through the national park, depending on where the park's southern boundary would be, and indeed on whether such a park is created. I can tell the Minister that the bypass would run not through the downs, but below them. The council points out that the land south of Arundel is not naturally beautiful, as statutorily defined. Indeed, the preferred route does not even run through an area of outstanding natural beauty. The real impact on the national park would occur if traffic continued to be forced up through it and the downland villages. That would constitute an impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty, whether or not the park came into being.
	There is also concern about the visual impact of a bridge crossing the River Arun. France seems to deal with problems of this kind very well, as anyone who has driven over the stunning Millau viaduct over the River Tarn will know. It would be perfectly possible to design a bridge that would complement the stunning view of Arundel and its castle and cathedral, which can be seen from the river bank.
	I mentioned that the Minister had written to me saying that he was taking regional advice. I am concerned about the ranking of the schemes in relation to the regional transport board. The Government have been responsible for the fact that an Arundel scheme has not been developed. The board has told Arundel town council that the fact that a solution to the problems at Arundel has yet to be agreed on, together with the potential timing of any work, explains the relatively low current ranking of Arundel's bypass. We are in a Catch-22 situation. The Minister will not move until he has regional advice, while the region will not give the scheme priority until the proposals are presented. Fortunately, the merits of the bypass are being recognised at the regional level and the sub-regional report submitted to SERA last week highlights the need to improve the A27.
	In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister how many times we have to make the case for a bypass and for improvements to the A27. Frankly, the economic case is unarguable and I believe that there is also a strong environmental case. We have been waiting 20 years since the bypass was first agreed by the Government. It has strong local support. Of course, there are some exceptions, but most people back it. In a MORI poll commissioned by the South East England Regional Agency last year, 82 per cent. of residents cited traffic levels in the region as an area of major concern—on a par with crime as a key issue. About 72 per cent. indicated a preference for bypasses that would draw traffic around towns. If the Minister is unmoved by the local case, the impact on the regional economy should surely be of concern to him. Now is the time to end the delay and give the go-ahead to improvements to the A27 at Arundel and also at Chichester and Worthing.